[Appeal of Settlement Denying Hazardous Duty Pay Claim]

An Air Force officer appealed the Claims Group's denial of his claim for hazardous duty pay for duty involving the demolition of explosives. The Claims Group had found that a portion of the claim was barred by statutory limitation and it disallowed the remainder of the claim because the officer did not meet the requirements for incentive pay for demolition duty. The officer appealed this settlement, stating that his claim should not be barred by statutory limitations since he was not responsible for the delay in forwarding the claim to GAO. In addition, he stated that the documentation which he submitted showed that he was performing demolition duty during the period in question. GAO found that, since the officer was on active duty continuously during the period, no part of his claim should be barred by statutory limitations. However, Air Force regulations require documentation which shows that a member was assigned to demolition duty as a primary duty assignment by competent orders. No such documentation was issued in this case. No matter how hazardous a military member's work may be, unless he meets all the requirements of the regulations, he may not be regarded as having performed duty involving demolition of explosives. The fact that hazardous duty payments were made improperly to his co-workers was no legal justification to make additional improper payments to the officer in question. Accordingly, the disallowance of his claim was sustained.